Synthetic Drug Intoxication in Children: Recognition and Management in the Emergency Department

Synthetic Drug Intoxication in Children: Recognition and Management in the Emergency Department

About this Issue

Due to the constantly changing chemical formulations of synthetic drugs and the prevalence of polysubstance abuse, diagnosing patients with intoxication from these substances is often challenging. In this issue, you will learn:

When children and adolescents present to the emergency department with agitation or mental status changes, intoxication from synthetic drug use should be in the differential diagnosis. Identifying the responsible compound(s) may be difficult, so asking the patient broad questions and utilizing appropriate diagnostic studies, when indicated, will aid in making the diagnosis and help identify more-serious complications. This issue discusses the challenges presented by the changing chemical formulations of synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and phenethylamines; outlines common presentations of intoxication from these substances; and summarizes best practices for evaluating and managing patients who present with intoxication after consumption of these synthetic drugs of abuse.

Case Presentations

A 15-year-old girl presents to your ED at 3 am. She is brought in by her mother, who woke up and found the girl staggering around their living room. The patient’s electronic medical record is unremarkable; the girl has no significant past medical history. On examination, she is mildly tachycardic; injected conjunctiva and diaphoresis are noted. The girl laughs intermittently and inappropriately during your encounter. Upon further discussion, she admits smoking marijuana that was purchased on the Internet by an older sibling. Several hours later, her mentation improves, but she now reports 6 out of 10 chest pain. What other substances could have been combined with the “marijuana?” Will blood or urine testing lead to a diagnosis? Is any management beyond supportive care indicated for this patient?

Introduction

Synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and phenethylamines have gained popularity due to a public perception that they were relatively safe to consume and that they were legal. In 2011, a temporary ban was placed by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration on some synthetic cannabinoids, and in 2012, federal legislation was passed that covered all synthetic cannabimimetic agents. Other nations have also worked to close legal loopholes and target synthetic cannabinoids. One study from New Zealand demonstrated that legislation that reduced the availability of synthetic cannabinoids was correlated with a decrease in psychiatric ED visits associated with synthetic cannabinoid use.1 Another study conducted in New Zealand found a 52% reduction in patient utilization of emergency psychiatric services after the enactment of legislation that sought to curb the supply of synthetic cannabinoids.2 Today, however, new formulations have been developed to skirt restrictions, and synthetic cannabinoids remain the second most commonly used drugs of abuse, after conventional marijuana. Moreover, synthetic cannabinoids continue to be available for sale online and in many stores.3-5 Additionally, as Mathai et al found in the city of Houston, Texas, use may continue to increase despite legislative attention given to synthetic cannabinoids.6

Many emergency clinicians remain unfamiliar with terminology regarding synthetic drugs. In a 2013 study that surveyed 83 physicians (88% response rate), most providers reported that they gathered a significant amount of their knowledge on this subject from nonmedical sources. The study found that 80% of respondents admitted to feeling uneasy about managing a patient with synthetic cannabinoid intoxication.Additionally, clinicians appeared less likely to ask about synthetic drug use compared to conventional drug use.7 Vazirian et al surveyed 124 emergency clinicians connected to the Cleveland Clinic health system. While analysis of this study’s results may be scrutinized for low participation (34% completion rate), approximately two-thirds of respondents reported having managed, in the prior 2 years, a patient with suspected synthetic cathinone intoxication. Despite this exposure, 77% of surveyed emergency clinicians did not ask about synthetic cathinone use.8 It is imperative that emergency clinicians include acute intoxication and synthetic drug abuse in their differential diagnosis for a wide variety of presentations. Most commonly, these patients will present with agitation or with changes in mental status; however, maintaining a high index of suspicion for complaints of chest or abdominal pain is necessary to detect some of the more serious sequelae.

In recent years, synthetic drugs have made their mark in the United States. While ascertaining the true prevalence of these synthetic drugs has been challenging because of underreporting, experts believe that their use has been on the rise.9 Emergency clinicians must be prepared to identify and manage exposures to synthetic drugs in a diverse range of ages within the pediatric population. This issue of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice will guide emergency clinicians through the diagnosis, management, and disposition of children who present with synthetic drug intoxication.

Critical Appraisal of the Literature

A literature search was performed in PubMed using the search terms synthetic cannabinoids and pediatric, synthetic cannabinoids and emergency medicine, synthetic cathinone and pediatrics, synthetic cathinone and emergency medicine, phenethylamines and pediatrics, and phenethylamines and emergency medicine. A search of the Library of Congress found 2 relevant reports. Background information on this topic was obtained from PubMed using the general search terms synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones, bath salts, phenethylamine intoxication, and MDMA intoxication.

The vast majority of publications were case reports, case series, or review articles. Higher-grade evidence was sparse for several possible reasons. The most significant reason is that designing randomized controlled trials of a toxic exposure would be clearly unethical. Diagnosis of synthetic cannabinoid and synthetic stimulant intoxication, in particular, is often presumed based on history only, as definitive laboratory testing is difficult to obtain and cost-prohibitive for many EDs. Moreover, many synthetic cannabinoids have a variety of active agents, complicating analysis of the clinical effects of a single substance. Finally, presentation of a patient with an acute intoxication to the ED is often due to polysubstance use. This creates a confounding effect, for which establishing an appropriate control is difficult.10 Because of these factors, significant gaps in knowledge remain. As technology is developed to better assess synthetic compound use, this may change. However, significant ethical considerations and confounding variables from polysubstance ingestion are still likely to limit quality evidence on this subject.

Evidence-based medicine requires a critical appraisal of the literature based upon study methodology and number of patients. Not all references are equally robust. The findings of a large, prospective, randomized, and blinded trial should carry more weight than a case report.

To help the reader judge the strength of each reference, pertinent information about the study is included in bold type following the reference, where available. Most informative references cited in this paper, as determined by the author, are highlighted.

Accreditation: EB Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the ACCME.

Credit Designation: EB Medicine designates this enduring material for a maximum of 4 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Specialty CME: Included as part of the 4 credits, this CME activity is eligible for 2 Pharmacology CME credits, subject to your state and institutional approval.

Faculty Disclosures: It is the policy of EB Medicine to ensure objectivity, balance, independence, transparency, and scientific rigor in all CME-sponsored educational activities. All faculty participating in the planning or implementation of a sponsored activity are expected to disclose to the audience any relevant financial relationships and to assist in resolving any conflict of interest that may arise from the relationship. Presenters must also make a meaningful disclosure to the audience of their discussions of unlabeled or unapproved drugs or devices. In compliance with all ACCME Essentials, Standards, and Guidelines, all faculty for this CME activity were asked to complete a full disclosure statement. The information received is as follows: Dr. Shah, Dr. Baum, Dr. Levine, Dr. Claudius, Dr. Horeczko, Dr. Mishler, and their related parties report no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturer(s) of any commercial product(s) discussed in this educational presentation. Dr. Quan made the following disclosures: compensated or uncompensated service for the sponsor or any commercial entity: BTG and Pfizer. Dr. Jagoda made the following disclosures: Consultant, Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Consultant, Pfizer Inc; Consultant, Banyan Biomarkers Inc; Consulting fees, EB Medicine.